• About
  • Blog (Ext.)
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources
  • News Links

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Deo Vindice

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: due process

Just Who Are The Animals Here?

24 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Animals, Augusta, due process, Georgia, God, government, law, Masters, stupidity, The People, voting

Congress, the Georgia General Assembly, and the United Nations have some competition in the running for world’s dumbest governing body. Meet the city commission of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia: ten utter morons and one near-useless mayor. It is alleged that one member has a triple digit IQ but no one is certain which it is. The rumor could be a hoax.

The commission itself could be considered a hoax, and a very funny one, but for its propensity for unending dastardly deeds. Ages ago Georgia’s second city was governed by an all white good old boys club. Following integration and the introduction of some good old black boys, the body degenerated into a constant racial brouhaha. Now, fully diversified, the group serves no known noble purpose; their actions, mostly petty, serve their own pathetic needs. The public, largely uninterested, is largely ignored. Again, but for brooding evil, this would be an appropriate relationship.

While normally content to lavish themselves with ultra-expensive “working” vacations in foreign resorts (no where better to discuss civic beautification than Hawaii) and looting the city Treasury for free gas (got the card, gotta use it!), they occasionally stumble into darker territory.

They give public roads to private clubs free of charge. They tailor local laws to the desires of private clubs. They subsidize brutality and incompetence negatively impacting the public. They run the taxpayers through the ringer: property taxes maxed out they’ve turned to charging exorbitant charges for rain water, air and sunlight.

Now the fools are coming for the animals. Take your furry friends and run.

The city’s animal control ordinance is due for its first revision since about 1970. Last year you probably noticed all the stray dogs, pigs, and deer running amuck at the Masters Tournament. The problem (real problem, really, for real) shall soon be solved! Sure, they’ll solve it in the most expensive manner possible and with tactics to make the SS giddy, but solve it they will. Only a vote away.

Henceforth all local animals will be registered with the government. All for the low, low price of $50 per animal, per year – forever. All funds will go directly to the Ritz Carlton Maui and BP.

There use to be high regard for things like privacy, private property, freedom from prohibition against unlawful taking and similar atrocities. Today the Supreme Court would likely declare this a perfectly normal tax and nothing more.

Worse, there shall be mandatory microchipping of all critters in the county. While the benefits (name one) of the mark of the beast are debatable, the cost is not. Just another tax though – and you did vote these bastards into office. Time to pay the crack pippers.

Many municipalities nationwide are enacting and enforcing the chip laws. As the Chronicle astutely notes: “Down at Animal Control, it seems to be less about the animal than the control.” They’re coming for your kids next, by the way. Then, you. 666! 666!

Worst of all the new law would give law enforcement new and Draconian powers. Any animal found outside without a collar and tag is subject to being detained and hauled into animal court. There, Dr. Euthanasia will dispense with rapid and final “justice.” One would think, with the advent of the microchip, tags would be irrelevant. The dog catcher could carry a scanner. “Beep, boop! Fido belongs to Mrs. Smith just down the street.”  This isn’t about thinking or else it would not be debated by the retards at the commission.

Pets on your private property or in your home are not safe either. The new law would allow authorities to enter private property without cause, without notice, and without a warrant or any pretense of Due Process. Take that, Fourth Amendment!

I call “Bullshit!” on this whole scheme. I like animals and I live in the Augusta area. There is no problem with two, four, six or eight legged varmits that can’t be addressed by current law or, better yet, by common sense. A dangerous dog or bull, loose and menacing, may be dealt with as needed. And, these instances are exceedingly rare. They do not require a $50 license fee to solve – a ten cent bullet will work every time.

You know where I stand against government and its hellish affairs. I’ll dispense with my usual rhetoric. I speak for the voiceless animals – not one of whom is guilty of voting for mindless savages.

Over the years I’ve observed a vast host of animals in urban settings, to include: dogs, cats, mice, frogs, snakes, birds, lizards, spiders, bees, ants, squirrels, beavers, turtles, aligators, possums, raccoons, rabbits, foxes, coyotes, deer, horses, fish, and cows. Not one I ever saw caused any trouble.

These are God’s creatures! Many and most roamed freely long before people ever visited Georgia. Leave them the hell alone!

If anyone must be euthanized, then I gladly offer up the members of the Augusta commission. Bastards!

a9cf6473ca327409108ab02d15cc06b0

Not a criminal! Google.

12593950Criminals. Augusta Chronicle.

Cry Me To The Moon: Obama’s Weak, Insidious Gun Grab

06 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

abortion, Amercia, communism, Congress, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, executive order, firearms, freedom, government, gun control, guns, idiocy, John Boehner, law, Obama, politicians, Putin, Second Amendment, terrorism, The People, tyranny, Washington, weak

As predicted here President Obama yesterday rolled out his “common sense” gun control edict. Edict it was, without any representative pretense. I saw a teary-eyed man surrounded by myrmidons issue a royal proclamation. Since the earliest days of the Old Republic chief executives have crafted executive orders needed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. But, then, there was a distinction. Laws were debated and passed by the legislature nominally accountable to the people. Presidents issued orders concerning either compliance with those laws or with the very few duties existing in Article Two of the Constitution.

Today Congress rams through secret spending boondoggles that no one has read and no one outside of Washington and New York needs or wants. Members of the House and Senate live in their own little world far removed from reality. The current crop of pitiful presidents, of whom Barry is merely the latest, fill in the governing gaps with a series of orders which are in effect law. As with the actual legislation from Congress the executive orders are occasionally reviewed by the corrupt, incompetent courts. More often than not the black-robed sorcerers give deference to the political branches by allowing these fascist decrees to stand.

The Constitution slowly rots under glass. The people slowly rot amid their televisions, sports, fast food, and disability applications. Nothing remains of the old America except for old John Wayne movies and the proliferation of private firearms. At any other time in history this latter relic would be of utmost concern to the hellish legions of political scum.

The Second Amendment has been firmly if inexplicably cemented into the legal and political fabric of the nation. And everyone is armed – heavily. Not that it really matters. The most heavily armed people in the world have proven themselves unwilling or incapable of using their vast potential to fight tyranny. Disarmament is the final plank of the Communist manifesto needed to complete the conquest of the United States. However, by dumbing themselves down and by being fervently preoccupied with perpetual nonsense the people have rendered obsolete this otherwise crucial step. It’s as bizarre as any plot from The Twilight Zone.

Bizarre too was Hussein Obama’s Tuesday performance. I’m confident Barry and his clan of leeches and roaches would love to confiscate all private arms. But, again, he doesn’t have to. The people obviously are madly in love with the government and are willing, nay demanding, of any manner of deprivation.

So it was that the Whitehouse debuted some of the weakest gun control every seen. It was introduced in as weak a fashion possible too.

160105122318-obama-crying-gun-executive-action-sot-00004809-large-169

Obama channeled his inner John Boo-Hoo Boenher while a host of unemployable sycophants looked on in vacuous approval. CNN.

All of this was scripted and predictable. A corrupt politician seizes on a non-issue (gun violence). Grown men and women who should otherwise be at work gather in solemn support. The political rodent cries about the deaths of a few children (tragic, yes) but his tears are hypocritical. The same man uses his military to murder other children while signing legislation funding an industry that murders a million more babies each year. The loyal opposition is neither. The comatose people remain unconcerned and uneducated.

And he cried. Tears. A man cried on television while breaking the law. Cried. George Washington never cried that we know of. Putin does not resort to tears. ISIS must have laughed at this pathetic spectacle. The delivery is one reason I say this program is weak. Another is the minimalist, chipping-away nature of the plan.

Some of Obama’s garbage may be dismissed by the courts or over-ridden by Congress. It all should be. It’s all unconstitutional and illegal. However, I imagine some will remain intact and what survives will serve as precedent and a building block for further incremental infringement. This is the insidious side of the fiat decree. What the rats cannot accomplish by a serious ban of guns they will attempt through a series of small reforms.

The Whitehouse claims: “President Obama has a responsibility to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence.” The Constitution gives the President no such power. No mind. This claim is a lie; none of Obama’s proposals will hinder violence – only freedom.

As part of the lie the President uses some numerical smoke and mirrors:

Gun Violence in America: By the Numbers

MORE THAN 4 MILLION
Number of American victims of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun in the last decade

MORE THAN 30,000
Number of gun deaths in America each year

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of children under 18 killed by firearms over the last decade

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of Americans who commit suicide with a firearm each year

466
Number of law enforcement officers shot and killed by felons over the last decade

3
Number of days after which a gun dealer can sell a gun to an individual if a background check is not yet complete

         Whitehouse lies.

So, based on these one-sided figures, Emperor Obama is taking action! Notice the use of numbers over a decade rather than by the year? Notice the lack of data on lives saved by guns? It’s over a million a year or 10 million each decade. These numbers are equivalent to the number of children killed in abortion clinics or the number of violent jihadis Obama would like to import. Of course presenting all sides of the equation wouldn’t help the agenda. All lies, remember, in order to curtail freedom. Gun control does nothing to stop gun crimes. The government wants more crime so as to justify its continued existence.

If they wanted less crime and less violence they would concentrate on enforcing laws against real crimes (murder, rape, etc.) and not on plants, tax form irregularities and speed limits. They would stop stirring up terrorists only to ship as many as possible to America. They would stop murdering babies. That’s not the plan. The plan is to further burden innocent people.

Here’s how it may work out for us. Currently all gun sales by federally licensed dealers are subject to regulation and background checks. All of this violates the Second Amendment but more on that another day. Private gun sales are subject to nothing. That’s about to change. Obama is intent on unilaterally redefining what or who constitutes a dealer requiring a license and copious red tape. Want to sell or give a gun to your son, friend, or the dude on Craigslist? Just one gun? Congratulations! You are now a gun dealer! Ready your checkbook. The licensing process ain’t cheap.

Obama will also dramatically expand the ranks of those prohibited from owning guns via two steps. First, Obama and his cronies will order doctors to violate federal law (HIPPA) by reporting “mentally ill” patients to the FBI. The definition of mental illness will be left to unelected and unaccountable beaurocrats. Abuse will be rank. The FBI and the ATF will swoop in to seize weapons from those deemed mentally defective.

Certain Social Security recipients will also be stripped of their rights and their guns. The theory is that those deemed incapable of making certain financial decisions should also be deemed too dangerous to own guns. Who does the deeming and under what circumstances remains to be seen. This will address the epidemic of nursing home shootings you’ve heard nothing about.

Current illegal law restricts those convicted of felonies or adjudicated by a court to be psychotic. These restrictions are based on laws passed by the legislature not by one sick, crying man’s order. I say they are illegal because they are. They came about in the 20th Century in violation of the Second Amendment. If someone is so dangerous due to illness, defect, or criminal predilection, then they should be locked away somewhere. If released into free society, they should be free.

As problematic as the current law is at least it was passed through the legal process. It also requires Due Process. A felon must be convicted. The deranged must be legally declared so. It requires a trial or a hearing. It depends on legal representation, confrontation of witnesses, evidence, and an appeals process. Law and order stuff. The coming program will be based on whim.

Some pencil pusher will decide who is unfit to bear arms based on whatever factors the pusher sees as appropriate. Stormtroopers will be dispatched to forcibly disarm the victims or kill them if they “resist.” Should a victim survive it will be incumbent upon him to appeal the beaurocrat’s decision. He will bear all the costs and burdens of proof in this uphill battle. He, presumed innocent until proven guilty, will have to prove his innocence to a degenerate system.

This will all start small and slow. Tyranny usually does so begin. Some provisions may fall in court. However, if these reforms are tolerated, more and more will follow. Beaurocratic expansion is a constant.

Will this be tolerated? The NRA and the State of Texas have already murmured against the plan. Yet, I suspect the majority of our citizens will do nothing because they know nothing. Legal reality interferes with the fun of reality television and other trappings of modern stupidity.

The government and political establishment are counting on you to be complacent. The control freaks on the left will expect your appreciation for being shielded from nothing. The charlatans on the right will expect your votes so they can “fix” things. If placated, both will get what they want and collectively do nothing except more of the same.

A brave few will resist. A few more will cheer what they wrongly perceive as protection from the violent. Most will remain blissfully ignorant. Where do you fall?

Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

08 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Simple Solutions From The D.C. Comedy Club

Tags

America, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, due process, government, gun control, H.L. Mencken, politicians, Second Amendment, terrorism

President Obama spoke 1910 words Sunday on the threat of Islamic terrorism. Actually he only used 160 words for ISIS. He spoke almost as many, 131, chastising Americans for owning guns and another 372 telling Americans what a bunch of racists they are. His speech on terrorism was only 8% terrorism and 27% It’s all your fault. The remaining 65% was empty political babble.

Gun control, says Obama will stop terrorism. He has the brilliant idea to restrict gun ownership for anyone on the government’s “no fly” list. This almost sounds like the common sense reform liberals are always going on about.

The problem, one of them, is that the list is compiled in secret with a total absence of Due Process. One can land on the list for any reason or for no reason. There’s little one can do about it. To be deprived of Second Amendment rights one needs to be convicted in a court of law or have a court agree with a physician’s assessment about mental health. There has to be a trial or a hearing. Attorney representation. Examination. Appellate procedure. Notice. Evidence. Due Process. A former Constitutional law professor should know that.

Not to be outdone, Republican front-runner Donald Trump has called for a total moratorium on Muslims entering the United States. I have no idea how the word count worked out.

Muslim control, says Trump, will stop terrorism. Again, there’s a temptation to agree with The Donald here. Most Islamic terrorists are, in fact, Islamic. His recommendation set off a firestorm amongst his GOP and Democratic rivals. I found it a comical firestorm.

Trump’s plan is full of problems. For one, it won’t, by itself, fix the problem. Unless and until the U.S. starts minding its own business, terror-prone lunatics will never cease to wish us harm. It would be better to let them all continue their centuries old feuds by themselves and far away. Our business, concerning terrorism, should consist entirely of stamping it out in America. We don’t need to venture abroad in search of ISIS as they are right here, right now. San Bernardino. Chattanooga. Boston. A man who travels the country should know that.

Both of these suggestions are somewhat tempting and may appear somewhat plausible. They are very, very simple. Our problems a little more complex. That is the trouble. Mencken said: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

220px-Simple_Simon_2_-_WW_Denslow_-_Project_Gutenberg_etext_18546

Simple Simon met a politician…

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

America, Constitution, Courts, crime, due process, DUI, freedom, Georgia, government, intelligence, law, Natural Law, police, reason, rights, The People, tyranny

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

Money Vultures Panic in Georgia

01 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

banks, banksters, Constitution, Courts, debt, due process, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, federal court, Federal Reserve, fiat money, Fourth Amendment, garnishment, General Assembly, Georgia, Jesus, law, Marvin Shoob, money, money-lenders, panic, The People, the poor

Happy October the first!  I cover a lot of legal issues here.  Many of them are bad – like the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent ruling that the police no longer need a warrant to search your vehicle.  Fourth Amendment be damned.

However, I am so happy to report good news!  For the economically disadvantaged among us (many and growing) and those in danger of joining them (most of the rest) the news doesn’t get much better than this:

Last month a Federal Judge struck down Georgia’s debt collection garnishment law as Unconstitutional!  See also: here and here.

The Judge was Marvin Shoob, whom I know from experience to be a class act and one of the fairest jurists around.

Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Senior Judge Marvin Shoob said the statute violated constitutional guarantees of due process by not giving debtors enough notice about the sorts of funds that are exempt from garnishment and how to claim those exemptions. He said the statute also didn’t provide a procedure to adjudicate exemption claims quickly enough.

Although the ruling rests on protecting the rights of individual consumers whose funds may be protected from creditors, it could affect all sorts of garnishments, including those that arise from business disputes and child support orders. Lawyers are debating whether simple changes in forms and procedures can allow garnishments to proceed prior to any legislative fix or further court ruling.

“People are panicking,” said Harriet Isenberg, who co-chairs the creditors’ rights section of the State Bar of Georgia.

Alyson Palmer, Collections-Lawyers-Scramble-After-Garnishment-Law-Is-Struck, Fulton County Daily Report, September 10, 2015.  

Good.  Let them panic.  They deserve it for a change as do their money-changing masters.

The subject case stemmed from a judgment collection action by a major credit card company against a poor man in Gwinnett County.  I know these cases well. When I was a law clerk I reviewed hundreds of them – each the same.  The banks file suit with no evidence whatsoever that any debt is owed and in 90% of their cases they win a default judgment.

It’s a terrible shame.  They don’t have any proof.  One or two Request for Admission questions and these cases would be dismissed.  The poor don’t know. The banks (and the State) don’t care.

Once the bank has a default judgment they file a wage or bank garnishment in an attempt to recover some of their (proof-less) monies.  As Judge Shoob points out the garnishment procedure is as crooked as the rest of the process.

As an aside, even if these banks could prove they had loaned money in the first place, I still wouldn’t feel bad for them losing it.  It never really existed, being a product of the Federal Reserve’s illegal funny money ponzi scheme.  More on that another time.

For now the banksters and their vulture collection agents will have to comply with the law.  Otherwise, “using a statute that has been declared unconstitutional to seek collection of consumer debt arguably would violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.”  Daily Report, supra. That means the bank would end up owing and facing stiff penalties.  Ha!

Banks and other large companies run the State of Georgia.  They will have this ruling nullified somewhere and soon.  There’s even talk of a special session of the ordinarily do-nothing General Assembly in order to bring the law into compliance with the Constitution.  Imagine that.

For now the banksters are feeling the panic their ancient predecessors felt when a certain Street Preacher ran them out of the Temple.  The rest of us are feeling a little relief.  Thank you Judge Shoob.

Guilty: Students, Professors, and the Public Get Schooled by Big Brother

16 Wednesday Sep 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

America, Amerika, anarchy, bombs, Courts, crime, double jeopardy, drugs, due process, evidence, evil, freedom, government, injustice, Islam, justice, Justice Department, law, police, police state, prisons, probable cause, rights, schools, Sir. William Blackstone, State, statism, students, teachers, Temple University, terrorists, The People

Several years ago, when I was actively practicing law, I held a discussion with a class of highly motivated and intelligent high school students (mostly upperclassmen).  My subject matter was the economic and cultural chaos wrought by the modern police state.  To my joy the students, nearly every one of them, were not only aware of the issues I covered but were deeply concerned about the world they would soon enter as adults.  Many embraced good old-fashioned anarchy as a positive response to the daily deluge of state-imposed evil.

Another thing which struck me, and which I mentioned to the young people, was how much their public, government high school resembled a prison – both in physical appearance and in operation.  Of this too they were all to aware.

It was a nice, new, modern facility in one of the trendiest parts of town.  It was where the money went when they didn’t want the private school bills.  The halls were clean, the grounds attractive, the people were pleasant.  However, I noticed things which seemed better suited for a correctional facility than a place of education.

Back then I regularly traveled around to various prisons and jails.  Most have a familiar layout and feel.  So too did this shiny new hall of academia.  The building was made of interlaced concrete blocks, bare of ornamentation – like a prison. The rectangular halls, with classrooms on either side, were laid out in wings or pods, fanning from a central hub – like a prison.  The central hub housed the administrative office in what looked like a tall glass control tower – like a prison. Near the doors were metal detectors (not in use that day) – like a prison.  The building was patrolled by armed officers – like a prison.

I had met some of these officers, all certified in law enforcement, before in professional settings.  I tried several cases stemming from “criminal” school misconduct.  The cases usually involved drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or other earth-destroying calamities.  Every single one of them was also devoid or things like probable cause, evidence, due process, and common sense.  I beat every single case.  And, it took quite the beating to win them.

Another ancient legal protection absent from modern Amerika, especially concerning students, is the prohibition against double jeopardy.  The theory, best summarized by Sir William Blackstone in the late eighteenth century was the “universal maxim of the common law of England, that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence.” (Emphasis mine.)  This theory is but legend now.  Our children often face triple jeopardy over things that are not crimes in the first place.  Here’s a real world example (possibly a combination of different cases, all real):

Johnny saw the school psychologist who suggested Johnny be prescribed mind-altering psychotropic drugs for his nonexistent attention deficit (in reality Johnny was just a boy).  Johnny’s doctor prescribed the narcotics, which otherwise would be considered illegal under state and federal law.  Johnny became semi-addicted.  The drugs caused his brain to slow down.  While giving him the appearance of being calm and receptive the dope also seriously impaired his health, to include his judgment. Johnny became a zombie.

Now, under the influence of these otherwise illegal drugs, practically mandated by his school, Johnny ran afoul of the school’s idiotic policy on otherwise illegal drugs.  School regulations dictate that any and all medications prescribed to a student must be held for the student’s use in the keeping of the school nurse. Johnny so kept his medicine in the school’s care and keeping.  Remember, the drugs in question diminished Johnny’s ability to rationalize and act appropriately.

One day, under the influence of these dangerous narcotics, Johnny forgot to drop off a few of his pills with the nurse.  He kept them in his book bag.  Mind you that Johnny never had any troubles whatsoever with his teachers, his classmates, or anyone else.

Out of the blue, without warning, probable cause, or a warrant, along came the local Sheriff’s department and their trusty drug-sniffing dog.  My students told me periodic drug sweeps were common in the prison…er..school.  The dog did his unlawful job well and promptly located Johnny’s pills.  The pills he was forced to take.  The pills that impaired his ability to reason.  The pills that caused him to forget to follow the procedures of the school that forced him to take the pills. Johnny was in trouble.

Jeopardy the first: Johnny had to appear at an administrative school hearing and faced expulsion or a year at the “alternative” school – like the supermax prison of the school world. Jeopardy the second, under asinine state law, as a minor with a driver’s license, Johnny’s possession of “drugs” put his license at risk and necessitated another administrative hearing before a state officer.  Third, and worst, Johnny faced a criminal proceeding and the possibility of jail time.

Luckily, Johnny had a good attorney and beat the triple threat.  He was back in class, soon weened himself off the school dope, and became a college honors student.  Others in the system are often not that lucky.  Maybe you know one of them. Maybe you were one of them.  Others have noticed this phenomenon and written about it.

Today John W. Whitehead wrote: Public School Students Are the New Inmates in the American Police State.

From the moment a child enters one of the nation’s 98,000 public schools to the moment she graduates, she will be exposed to a steady diet of draconian zero tolerance policies that criminalize childish behavior, overreaching anti-bullying statutes that criminalize speech, school resource officers (police) tasked with disciplining and/or arresting so-called “disorderly” students, standardized testing that emphasizes rote answers over critical thinking, politically correct mindsets that teach young people to censor themselves and those around them, and extensive biometric and surveillance systems that, coupled with the rest, acclimate young people to a world in which they have no freedom of thought, speech or movement.

If your child is fortunate enough to survive his encounter with the public schools, you should count yourself fortunate.

Most students are not so lucky.

By the time the average young person in America finishes their public school education, nearly one out of every three of them will have been arrested.

Whitehead.

Whitehead notes the utterly insane militarization of the school police, who shouldn’t even exist in the first place:

In their zeal to crack down on guns and lock down the schools, these cheerleaders for police state tactics in the schools might also fail to mention the lucrative, multi-million dollar deals being cut with military contractors such as Taser International to equip these school cops with tasers, tanks, rifles and $100,000 shooting detection systems.

Indeed, the transformation of hometown police departments into extensions of the military has been mirrored in the public schools, where school police have been gifted with high-powered M16 rifles, MRAP armored vehicles, grenade launchers, and other military gear. One Texas school district even boasts its own 12-member SWAT team.

As Whitehead states, the stories of abuse are “legion.” Students are being harassed, detained, and arrested for anything and everything.  One student was recently arrested for showing off his homemade clock at school.  Specifically, he was showing the clock off to his engineering teacher, who was duly impressed. Despite the fact the clock was obviously a time keeping device and impressed the shop teacher, its owner, a 14-year-old, was handcuffed and hauled away by police.

_85589317_4163c0e1-3c48-44ab-af0f-c53360632e81

Child Arrested for Chronometer Possession.  BBC.

The boy in question was a known Muslim and some feared his clock was a bomb. The criminal case was dismissed after the clock was verified to be a clock not a weapon.  I imagine the boy still faces school discipline in addition to the trauma he suffered during the incident.

This story almost makes sense.  Americans today face the threat of Islamic terror, largely because their government constantly stirs the Islamic world to the point of terrorism.  The same government then trains, equips and funds the known terrorists.  Worse, the government, almost out of malicious hate for the people, then import migrants from the areas where they have fostered hate and terror.  You can see this is definitely a problem.  But, it’s a problem with the state not with an aspiring young engineer.

Your government does not care, at all.  Frequently neither does the media nor the television-numbed people themselves.  Obey those laws!  Trust the state! Arrested means guilty, period!

William L. Anderson today recounts the horror story of the arrest and unlawful prosecution by the U.S. “Justice” Department of Xiaoxing Xi, Chairman of the physics department of Temple University, on espionage charges: Paranoia and Pernicious Prosecutions: The Department of Injustice Continues its War Against the Innocent.

The once-glorious standard of American criminal law – guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – no longer exists de facto in U.S. courts, and especially in federal courts. Furthermore, federal intervention in certain legal areas – and especially when highly-politicized accusations of sexual assault are made – has made it extremely difficult for charged individuals to mount a defense, even when a charge is ludicrous on its face.

Let me further explain. Had there been a trial federal prosecutors would have presented their evidence and Dr. Xi would have had to then rebut with his evidence. However, as became painfully obvious, prosecutors had no evidence. Instead, they had “evidence” that on its face was untrue because they had the wrong material. One imagines that prosecutors and their “expert” witnesses would have given jurors a lot of scientific terminology that would have been confusing, and when jurors are confused, they usually end up siding with the prosecution, since most Americans believe that an indictment itself is “proof” of guilt.

It would have been up to Dr. Xi and his defense to prove that federal agents had presented the wrong set of blueprints. The feds would have falsely claimed that theirs was the correct set, even though by then they surely would have known they were presenting false claims. This last point is important, because it is a crime to knowingly present false information to a jury, but prosecutors never are disciplined for doing just that.

Anderson.

As Anderson notes, the feds dropped their case once it was obvious they had no evidence.  Xi pretty much lost everything – his reputation, his position, his peace of mind as an innocent American – all because of groundless charges brought without evidence.  Evidence is (or used to be) critical for a criminal case and conviction.  In my career I had similar criminal cases in federal and state courts fall apart due to a complete lack of evidence.  More on some of those in another column or two.

Many do not care about standards of evidence, due process or about the rights of people in general.  See: here, and here, and here.  That last “here” link is to a story I did about an innocent man shot by the police in Atlanta in his own home for no reason.  That narrative has played out yet again:

Fearing for their lives, California deputies opened fire on a man who was recording them with a cell phone from the garage of his home Friday, claiming they thought it was a gun.

Sacramento County sheriff’s deputies then searched the man’s home, finding no guns, before they apologized and went on their way.

Fortunately, Danny Sanchez survived the shooting, ending up with only bullet fragments in his legs, which he was having removed through surgery on Friday.

And although deputies apologized to Sanchez, they are pretty much unapologetic for their actions because, you know, officer safety.

 Carlos Miller, PINAC News.

Pitiful action by pitiful men.  Scared of a cellphone.  “Sorry we shot you.  Well, have a good day, sir!”  And the lemmings among you will still praise the deputies and chastise the victim.  “He should have obeyed the law!”  He did.  “You have to respect the police!”  No known disrespect even after they almost murdered him. Reality is doing a really poor job convincing the state-worshipers their’s is a false god.

For you, the sane, eye with distrust the machinations of government: its foreign policies; its immigration policies; all its policies; its schools; its courts; its police. All the laws and all the agents serve but the government and its owners. You and I are either obedient servants or criminal enemies of the state.

Note: This article was originally intended as two separate parts. As the subject matters – schools as prisons and more prosecutorial/police misconduct are related, I combined them, here.  This also promotes reading economy.  You’re welcome.

Waco: A Harbinger, 20 Years Later

19 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

1993, AR-15, army, ATF, Bill Clinton, children, church, citizens, Congress, Constitution, CS gas, David Koresh, due process, FBI, felony, FLIR, Fort Hood, freedom, George Roden, government, grenades, guns, JAG, Janet Reno, John Danforth, law, lies, media, methamphetamines, military, murder, Posse Comitatus, Seventh Day Adventists, sheriff, snipers, tanks, Texas, thugs, UPS, Waco, War, warrant

Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fiery end of the federal government’s siege on the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas.  April 19, 1993 was the end of a month and a half ordeal probably unlawfully initiated against a peaceful, if weird, group of Christians by the tyrannical Imperial federal government.  In addition to being a serious injustice in and of itself, it also stands as a critical warning to all of us free citizens currently enduring the 21st Century.

ruby21

(Separation of Church and State?  Google Images.)

I recall the media’s treatment of the story during the winter and spring of 1993.  Essentially, they reported the feds’ words verbatim and, in keeping with modern journalistic tact, did so with no critical analysis whatsoever.  The Clinton administration and their lamestream puppets said that David Koresh was a deranged and dangerous man who had brainwashed a large group of followers Jim Jones style and who had engaged in several serious criminal offenses.  All of this was based on lies.  Seventhy-six innocent civilians and four stormtroopers lost their lives because of these lies.  Numerous others, on both sides, were scarred, physically and mentally, as a result of the battle.

Twenty years later, there has never been an honest official review of the crimes committed by the government between February 28th and April 19th that fateful year.  Laws have been rendered obsolete, innocents have been imprisoned, criminals have been promoted and lionized, and the truth might have just as well burned in the terrible conflagration.

The Branch Davidians separated from the mainline Seventh Day Adventist Church in 1955.  Essentially, they believed they were living in the “end times” and ordered their lives accordingly.  There developed a power struggle within the group between David Koresh and George Roden.  During the 1980’s there was a violent confrontation between the factions which resulted in several prosecutions; there were no convictions and the matter faded away.  Following his conviction for a 1989 axe murder, Roden was imprisoned in a mental facility.  Koresh took command of the church.

Koresh believed himself the final prophet of the church and the man who would guide the group through the end of days, the rapture, or whatever.  His methods were odd to say the least.  His followers moved into his compound in Waco where Koresh lead a polygamist prophetly existence.  I have never understood why people ever allow themselves to come under the sway of such men.  At any rate, Koresh and his followers were largely isolated from the rest of the world, engaged in their final preparations. 

koresh_David_320x240

(David Koresh, born Vernon Wayne Howell.  Google.)

Those preparations, in part, lead to the government’s investigation and subsequent charges.  The charges were as follows: manufacture and possession of illegal weapons (machine guns), the manufacture of methamphetamines, and child abuse and statutory rape of young girls.  I seem to recall tax evasion charges as well but cannot locate definitive documentation.  The IRS can always bring tax charges or administrative actions against anyone due to the impossible nature of the tax code.

There was no evidence to support the meth charges.  Roden had allegedly run a meth lab at the church during the 80s.  However, the operation had ceased years before Koresh took over the group.  Not approving a drugs, Koresh dutifully turned over to local authorities the remains of lab.  That was the extent of the evidence – none.  Some FBI and ATF agents acknowledged the lack of evidence on these counts. 

The allegations of child abuse, etc. came from Koresh’s critics, both before and after the 1993 ordeal.  Such crimes, even when real, are not federal matters.  They are within the jurisdiction of the state.  Nevertheless, the accusations were included against Koresh and Co. in order to make them look as bad as possible to the grand jury and judge.  The government never lets the truth interfere with a case. 

Reports indicate that Texas child-protective authorities had previously visited the church and talked extensively with Koresh.  No charges resulted.  Koresh was also on relatively friendly speaking terms with the local Sheriff, who later expressed concern over federal actions. 

As for the “machine guns,” the charges stemmed from a report by a UPS delivery driver of weapons components being shipped to the group in Waco.  The driver relayed his information to the Sheriff’s Office.  A deputy then informed the BATF (BATFE or ATF).  Another Koresh detractor and former member provided hearsay of the illegal conversion of AR-15 rifles into automatic M-16s.  The Davidians ran a legitimate weapons business, the Mag Bag, in order to raise funds for their operation.  None of their wares and weapons were illegally obtained.  However, the ATF (again not concerned with the truth) mislead a federal judge by speculating that the mere existence of the legal weapons might suggest a crime. 

The ATF also informed the judge that a neighbor had previously reported the sound of automatic gun fire emanating from the church.  They failed to leave out the fact that, as with the child abuse charges, this sound was also reported to the Sheriff, who had investigated the matter and concluded there was no criminal activity. 

You may recall that during the siege and its aftermath, the media parrotted reports of a certain number of machine guns at the church.  The number continued to decline oddly as time passed until it reached th true number – zero.

As part of their speculative fishing trip the ATF set up surveillance from a nearby house and sent an unconvincing infiltrator to join the group.  Koresh became aware of both but said nothing.  Once their lies were neatly typed out, the ATF obtained search and arrest warrants and prepared to descend on the church on February 28, 1993.

A reported was tipped off about the impending raid and asked for directions to the church from a postman, who happened to be Koresh’s brother-in-law.  Thus was Koresh tipped off.  He then dismissed the ATF’s informant from the group.  The informant reported that, when he departed the church, the members were praying.

Having come to belive their own lies, the ATF geared for battle against the church members.  They illegally assembled at Fort Hood, a nearby Army installation (remember the Posse Comitatus Act, anyone?).  They were well armed and well armoured though their other preparations were unbelievably incompetent.  Rather than arriving in marked vehicles so as to identify themselves as lawmen, the agents rode up in cattle trailers pulled by several pick-up trucks (private models belonging to various agents).  They also neglected to carry communications equipment.  The first reports of a gun fight at the church came from the church itself; the members called 911 to report they were being attacked by a gang of heavily armed thugs.

Those thugs, once they disembarked their trailers, immediately opened fire on the church – in order to kill and silence the canine residents.  Normally, approaching officers identify themselves as such and attempt to serve their warrants peacefully.

Thus, with no indication of the agent’s legal intentions (if any), the Davidians responded as Americans typically do to violent intruders.  They shot back.  A lethal gun battle raged from around 45 minutes.  The local Sheriff, who said he was not apprised of the raid and knew nothing of it until the Davidians called for help, was unable to communicate with the ATF (dead radios don’t receive calls).  The Sheriff’s Office eventually negotiated a cease-fire.  Five Davidains and four agents were dead.  At this point, Koresh’s and his followers’ fates were sealed.  The government does not tolerate the killing of their own, even in cases of self-defense.

21320458_BG1

(“No-Knock” warrant entry.  Fox 4 Dallas.)

Following the ceasefire, one of the most infamous sieges in American history commenced.  The government dispensed with all vestiges of common sense and gradually increased tensions at the church.  Eventually, all the communications and utilities of the Davidians were cut off.  This left the members without running water and electricity.  The government apparently had lost interest in those abused children.

The FBI took over the operation.  Some within the agency favored negotiating a peaceful end to the ordeal.  Others, who views won out in the end, favored aggressive military action.  Koresh allowed eleven of his followers to depart – they were immediately arrested and some were prosecuted.  At least they survived.  As April passed the government prepared to end the confrontation violently.  As part of their campaign, the FBI mobilized military assets including, helicopters, light armoured vehicles, main battle tanks, and tactical advice from the military.

You may recall from my column, Posse Comitatus, that using the force of the military in domestic law enforcement is a felony.  Remember, no-one has ever been prosecuted under the Act.  However, some within the government remained honest and faithful to the law.  Before rendering illegal assistance to the FBI, the Army attempted to procedurally clear the matter internally.  The case was given to a JAG Attorney for analysis, particularly as to the FBI’s request for assistance.  The JAG Officer promptly reported the scheme was a Posse Comitatus violation.  He was told to stick his opinion in his ear.

The FBI, now armed for battle in an actual war, began to harass the Davidians intensely.  In addition to cutting off their utilities and treating those afore-mentioned children to high-decibel AC/DC music around the clock, the government constantly circled the church with their tanks.  They flattened everything outside, including the Davidians automobiles.  They also intentionally ran over grave sites repeatedly (a crime).

waco_texas_tanks_compound_fire

(We don’t need no stinking Posse Comitatus!  Google.)

At last, on April 19th, the government made its move.  President Clinton still desired a peaceful, negotiated end but was convinced by his chief-Nazi, Attorney General Janet Reno, to use violent force.  Reno’s justification for the use of overwhelming force varied and changed as time passed and the number of machine guns declined. 

The FBI used their tanks to smash holes through the walls of the church.  Into these they pumped CS gas, which as a chemistry major like Reno (“consulted” by the military) should have known, is delivered via a highly flammable powder.  The FBI also launched numerous flash-bang grenades into the building.  As normally happens when extreme heat and sparks are applied to a flammable substance, a fire erupted.  Of course, the government blamed the fire on the Davidians – why stop the lies, at this point.  You will surely recall the fire, it is engrained in my memory forever.  See the picture above.

They government continued to ram the building with tanks.  They drove one into the building at a point where they knew the children were likely gathered.  I have seen video of a Davidian crushed and shredded beneath the tracks of one of the 70-ton vehicles. 

The fire killed the Davidians.  Some attempted to escape only to be shot to death by FBI (or military) snipers.  I watched a video of a subsequent Congressional investigation of the event.  The Congressmen watched a video of the assault unfold that was filmed used FLIR (forward-looking infrared).  An expert identified various flashes as muzzle blasts directed toward fleeing, unarmed Davidians.  A member, indignant that anyone would question or accuse the government of murder, demanded to know what the expert’s expertise with FLIR.  The expert’s assertion he had invented the technology was insufficient for the panel.

All ensuing investigations, including that of Former Senator and Special Counsel John Danforth, exonerated the government.  We call this a whitewashing.  Following a criminal trial, eight Davidains were convicted of firearms charges.  Four were acquitted outright and all were cleared of murder charges.  Following numerous appeals the Davidans received much lighter sentences and all were freed from custody by 2007.  No criminal investigation or prosecution of the federal agents was ever conducted.  In another whitewashing, the survivors and the families of the deceased lost a civil lawsuit in the case of Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2003).

This story is one of massive and complete injustice.  It should also serve as a dire warning to all Americans of the government’s boundless power and ability to get away with any crime, no matter the circumstances.  Remember Waco whenever you see or hear accusations from the government.  Remember who really abused children.  Remember who lied to initiate and to justify their actions.  Remember and do all you ever can to combat injustice.  We owe that much, at least, to our deceased citizens and to the Natural order of the law.

Constitutional Law

13 Wednesday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

16th Amendment, abortion, activists, America, anarchy, Anti-Federalists, Articles of Confederation, attorneys, Bill of Rights, case-law, Coca-Cola, commerce clause, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Law, Courts, dissent, Dred Scott v. Sandford, drones, due process, equal protection, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, freedom, General Welfare Clause, Germany, government, Jacobson v. Mass., Japan, John Marshall, judges, law, law school, legal education, Liberty, liberty interests, Max Tucker, McCulloch v. Maryland, Michael Bloomberg, murder, National Security, Natural Law, Necessary and Proper Clause, New York, Ninth Amendment, ObamaCare, patriotism, philosophy, professors, Rand Paul, republic, rights, Roe v. Wade, science, scrutiny, Second Amendment, slavery, States, stict construction, students, Supreme Court, tariffs, taxation, taxes, Tenth Amendment, The People, United States, voting, War Between the States, Washington, wheat, Wickard v. Filburn, World War II

This article is an extension of my recent columns on The Constitution, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/the-united-states-constitution/, and Legal “Education,” https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/legal-education/.  One would think that the matter of Constitutional law would have been covered in my article on the Constitution itself – unless one also read my treatise on law schooling.

Oddly, in my experience, the Constitution itself is not required reading for Constitutional law classes. Rather, some imported parts of the document are set forth in the text-book used by the professor. This strikes me as intellectually dishonest and unwise, akin to using a dangerous power tool without first reading the directions. Herein, I briefly cover the usual course material from such as class. The professors, many of whom have never been in a court, let alone argued for or against the Constitution, regurgitate the rulings of different courts regarding a limited number of subjects. While there is an occasional discussion of the reasoning behind the opinions, they are generally viewed as sacred, unswerving law. Rare instances where history has determined the rulings to be invalid (i.e. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)– slavery is okay pre war between the States) are swept under the proverbial rug, written off as mistakes made due to the prevailing thoughts of the cases’ times.

tribe conlaw

(Prof. Laurence Tribe’s ConLaw Book.  Google Images.)

As I have written elsewhere, no reference to Natural Law is made and no critical thought is given to the “why” behind the laws. As Max Tucker wrote recently, any student who dares to pose dissenting views or arguments is detested noticeably by the other students and the faculty. Rarely, student are given the opportunity to delve into the deeper meanings of the cases they study. I was fortunate to be able to write a short essay on the effects of Scott, in which I decried its universal sadness and the role it played in the schism in our nation circa 1861. Part of my essay was read aloud to the class by our professor – another rarity, a former practicing attorney. My points were well accepted. Of course, I had the benefit of over a century of progress on my side. Other topics, which require hypothetical deconstruction, are roundly ignored.

As with all other areas of the law, Constitutional law has degenerated into a study of the constantly shifting case-law which arises under the Constitution.  By the way, I always capitalize the “C” in Constitution out of reverence for the document and its place in our Republic (I do the same for “Republic” too).  I have explained my philosophical troubles and doubts about the Constitution but, due to my sworn allegiance to it, I am honor-bound to defend its ideals.

Case-law study is important and has a valid place in the legal practice.  After all, most attorneys make a living pushing various issues in courts through individual cases.  Each provision of any law is subject to some interpretation as part of its application to the circumstances of the real world.  The trick of “strict construction” application of the Constitution is to adhere as closely as possible to the text and plain meaning of the old parchment.  I follow strict construction as my approach to most laws, in and under the Constitution.  The first fork of any analysis is to determine if the issue scrutinized is compatible with the underlying law.  If the two are compatible, then the analysis shifts to application of your set of facts to the law.  If there is an incongruity, then it is necessary to decide whether the law is improper or if the facts are insufficient for action.

Here’s a brief, over-generalized example, ripped from the recent headlines!:  Mary lives in New York City; she is an avid consumer of Coca-Cola beverages, particularly in large volumes.  Mary went to the corner store in Hell’s Kitchen and ordered a 40-ounce frozen Coke treat.  She was informed by the clerk that a drink of such heft was just outlawed by the wise and magnanimous mayor of NYC, Michael “Soda Jerk” Bloomberg.  Mary, offended and hurt, contacts an attorney in order to take action against the mayor and the city.  Her attorney files a lawsuit seeking an injunction or some other remedy to force the city to curb its policing of soft drink size.  Upon reviewing the case, a judge decides that NYC’s ordinance is too vague to be enforceable and strikes it down accordingly.  Mary happily continues on her guest for obesity.  This represents proper application and analysis of the law and the facts – in this case Mary’s freedom to drink liquid sugar in peace.

Had Mary had a more pressing cause – say a desire to legally and permanently rid herself of a troublesome in-law and she requested her attorney file a similar action to invalidate New York’s statute against murder, her attorney would have likely declined the case.  If he was a fool, and filed an action anyway, the attorney would lose as any court would side with the law irregardless of Mary’s malicious desires.  While it is proper to allow peaceful people to purchase and consume products of their desire, it would be improper and an affront to Natural Law, to allow someone to kill another person without good cause (i.e. self-defence). 

These examples are extremely simple, but they demonstrate my core points.  The problem in the law has arisen from the over deference to certain laws as applied to the real world.  Today, the Constitution is not interpreted as strictly dictated by its own terms or by my previous explanation of the powers it grants.  As I noted before, a few select clauses have been given immortal omnipresence to the extent the entire document has been rendered a nearly lost cause.  All of these clauses give extra, unintended authority to the government to regulate and control everything.  Through various cases over the years, the courts have essentially made up the law or, at least by their interpretation of the laws, have allowed over-reaching actions of the government to stand as legitimate.

Popular of late is the criticism of “activist judges” who take on the role of a legislator in their quests to rewrite the laws of Congress.  Some courts have gone so far as to divine new rights and powers mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a poster case for such activism.  In Roe, the Supreme Court opined that abortion of unborn children is a right of pregnant women.  This right stems, allegedly, from the women’s “liberty interest” in their own bodies.  While not found in the text of the Bill of Rights (or elsewhere), this right does exist and should be protected.  However, the right, like all rights, has limits.  The high Court did not adequately consider the rights of the unborn children to be secure in the integrity of their own bodies during its decision.  Instead, the Court issued an incomprehensible psuedo-scienticifc approach to determined when a life becomes a life.  Medical science has definitely answered any related questions in favor of the unborn.  However, as is, about 1 Million children are murdered every year thanks to the Roe decision.  This was a case of improper balancing of competing interests under the umbrella of the law.

I do not roundly condemn “activists.”  Sometimes it is advantageous for a jurist to heavily scrutinize the law if the law actually impinges on protected rights.  The New York soda decision is a good, if oddly worded, example.  Problems happen when judges do not universally review the impact of a law, standing or undone.  It is also impermissible in a Republic for a court to institute new law – the domain of the legislature only. 

I will herein briefly explain a few of those key clauses and ideas of the Constitution which have given the federal government unlimited power over your lives.  These are the basis for Constitutional study in law schools.  In summary it suffices to say that they can and do anything they please, without hinderance.

The General Welfare Clause

This clause purportedly allowed Congress to use its defined powers for the betterment of all people.  It has been held it “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).  However, in conjunction with other provisions, the clause has been used to justify countless spending sprees directed towards the profit of a select few, often at the expense of the People.

The Commerce Clause

Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.” Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3.  Rather than regulating commerce between the listed entities, this clause has been egregiously abused to empower Congress to regulate anything which can conceivably occur wishing any of the stated territories.  The poster case of the clause is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) in which the Supreme Court declared that wheat grown by a farmer may not necessarily be used privately by the farmer because such use (bread baking) might negatively affect interstate commerce, the ability of bread companies to sell the farmer bread.  While defying belief, this case and its ilk are recited as if dictated by Jesus by law professors coast to coast.  The Commerce Clause saw minor setbacks in the 1990s but it remains as the basis for most criminal and civil statutes enacted by Congress.  Arguing against commerce connections in court is as successful as herding alley cats.  I know this from personal experience.

The Necessary and Proper Clause

This clause, known also as the “elastic clause,” appears in Article I, Section 8, Clasue 18.  It provides that Congress can authorize the steps required to implement their other enumerated powers.  The Anti-Federlists argued against this provision, fearing it would allow the central government to assume endless power in the name of affecting those valid programs instituted under the named authorities.  Turns out they were right.  In conjunction with the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause has been used to justify federal intrusion into everything.  It was necessary and proper to prohibit farmers from utilizing their own crops to preserve commerce, and so forth.

National Security

“Patriotism” is regarded as the last refuge of a scoundrel.  Frequently, it is the first.  There exists an idea that an allegation that a legal measure is warranted in order to preserve security or defeat some enemy regardless of any other factors.  Frequently, the government will assert this as a defense in a court case in order to avoid any discussion of the underlying subject matter (torture, internment of citizens, etc.).  This tactic usually stops the case dead in its tracks.  In a true emergency such a policy might serve a valid purpose.  However, as we now are told we live under perpetual threat of all sorts of impropriety, the argument is used as a universal repeal of our rights.  History indicates that “emergencies” never go away.  For instance, 68 years after winning World War II, we still station troops in Japan and Germany.  We also have a portion of our incomes withheld prematurely for taxation purposes – this was supposed to be a temporary war-time measure of WWII.  History also shows that a government will do anything to maximize its power under a security “threat,” including the manufacture of threats from nothing.

Taxation

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create….”  Chief Justice John Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).  Governments have proven themselves able to destroy just about anything, they create next to nothing.  Originally, our government was funded by tariffs and import fees and simple requests to the States for assistance.  The advent of the 16th Amendment gave Washington awesome power to take as much money as the need from the people’s labors.  The illegal Federal Reserve scheme allows them to create additional monies at will.  The courts have constantly upheld the power of taxation even when Congress didn’t know they were implementing a tax.  See: The Obamacare decision, Slip Opinion 11-393, June 28, 2012.  Taxation gets its own law school class – where it is worshipped like a god.  Dissenters are frowned upon as heretics (I know…).

A Few Rights

Over the years, several levels of scrutiny have been assigned to several pet rights.  I am suspicious of each of these levels and will not bore you with their application.  For the most part they apply rights based on classification of persons and against the backdrop of government “interests.”  It is interesting that usually deference is given to a particular law; the law is presumed Constitutional absence some showing that it is an abuse impermissible under one of the abstractly devised levels of scrutiny.  I would prefer deference to the Liberty of the People, with the government left to prove conclusively their law does not infringe that right or that any infringement is necessary in order to secure greater liberties for all.

Most Constitutional law teaching about “rights” center on the First Amendment.  There is usually a class devoted singularly to the subject.  The First is worthy of great attention.  However, too often the cases studied thereunder tend to regard outrageous acts.  Rather than securing rights to fundamental speech for example, such as protesting abortion, educating potential jurors, and protecting free speech during an election, the courts have wasted much time protecting things like naked dancing and wearing offensive sloganed t-shirts. 

Voting rights, due process, and equal protection in general have also received great review.  However, given the steady deterioration of fundamental due process and equal protection, it is obvious there is a systemic bias towards the government over the free people.  For example, Rand Paul’s protests aside, next to nothing has been done in response to the President’s plan to murder Americans in America using drones and no legal process.  The scheme is likely to survive (hopefully unused) due to deference to vague assertions of “national security.”

The rest of the Constitution is left in the dark void of undecided law.  It is either taken for granted that such matters will be resolved in due course by the courts or simply that the provisions have no effect.  In law school I was bluntly told that the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments didn’t exist.  I found this hard to believe.  Now, with several positive court cases to lean on, the Second has been given some legitimacy though many “scholars” still remain grounded in the ancient, misdirected past.  On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 I will attend a symposium on the Second Amendment, replete with reference to these lost interpretations.  I have several questions sure to generate discussion and maybe laughter among the gathering.  Join me if you will.

If you teach Constitutional law, incorporate the actual text into your class. It could be a prerequisite, covered at the beginning of the semester and then referred to during the subsequent discussion of cases.  Attorneys need to familiarize themselves with the text of the Constitution, everyone else should too.

Together, each of us acting as we may, we may be able to slowly restore a rational teaching and application of the Constitution.  Perhaps someday we will return to the looser confines of the Articles of Confederation, allowing the member States of the Union (closer to their respective citizens) to affect policies towards the People.  With an eye towards ultimate freedom, I can envision an even less restrictive society.  I am reminded that “anarchy is better than no government at all.”  I’m not sure society is ready for that level of responsibility yet.  Someday…

Don’t Drone Me, Bro!

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

14th Amendment, 9/11/2001. 12/7/1941, Americans, army, Austin Rhodes, banksters, Big Club, capitalism, children, Clay Whittle, Constitution, Cornfield County, corporatism, Daivd Koresh, drones, due process, Eric Holder, feds, Fifth Amendment, filibuster, GA, government, guilt, idiots, innocence, JAG, Jesus Christ, King John, law, law enforcement, lies, Magna Carta, murder, Natural Law, poor bird, Posse Comitatus Act, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Scott Dean, Senate, sheriff, tanks, taxes, Texas, the Devil, The Empire, Thomas More, Waco massacre

This post rambles from subject to subject.  Be forewarned.

Drones…

Just last night I thrilled you, my dear readers, with a few news stories concerning the law.  While Attorney General Eric “Fast and Furious” Holder refuses to prosecute super-rich banksters for criminal wrong-doing, he has no problem using drones to murder “ordinary” Americans for any reason or no reason.  Well, in his defense, He said the drones would only be used to thwart catastrophic events like the 9/11/2001 or Pearl Harbor attacks.  I don’t believe him.  It doesn’t matter since he’s not in charge of when the triggers are squeezed. 

This morning I was listening to the radio and had the privilege of hearing my friend Austin Rhodes (WGAC, 580 AM, Augusta) give his morning commentary.  He initially praised Senator Rand Paul (Ron’s son) for his filibuster yesterday which targeted the administration’s dystopian law enforcement policies.  Then he surprised me.  He, playing devil’s advocate, asked if a drone strike on David Koresh (remember him?) in 1993 would have prevented the later bloodshed at Koresh’s Seventh Day Adventist Church in Waco, Texas.  At first I was indignant but then I realized the value of his question.  The ultimate answer is “who knows?”  No-one does for certain.

It is my opinion that the government was out to get Koresh and his senior worshippers and would have slaughtered them all anyway.  Austin and I disagree on the nature of the events that unfolded in Waco twenty years ago.  That’s the beauty of America, we can agree to disagree.

There was much disagreement in early 1993, regarding the pre-assualt on the church.  For instance, the warrant obtained by the Imperial stormtroopers was defective.  Perhaps they could not decide on what, if anything, was wrong with Koresh and Co.  That might explain the defects in the law sited to obtain the warrant.  The local Sheriff and the State of Texas disagreed with the feds that crimes were being committed in the church.  A JAG officer (military attorney), when asked about the legality of deploying military assets for this domestic law enforcement “operation,” disagreed with his inquirers.  He reported the scheme was illegal, a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, etc.  The first Stormtroopers on the scene must have disagreed about the wisdom of carrying communication devices in case something went wrong, whether to open fire immediately upon exiting their horse trailer (official police version), and whether the church members would return fire.

In the end, the dissenters were silenced.  The rest is history.  As I recall the Empire had several grounds for the War in Waco: 1) income tax evasion; 2) illegal drugs; 3) illegal firearms; and 4) the abuse of children.  I think they eventually proved the tax count as they can prove that against almost anyone due to the psychotic nature of our tax laws and regulations.  I think there was no evidence of the guns or drugs – any existing specimens would have been destroyed in the government’s fire.  As for the children, while I recall some survivors insisted there had been some sort of impropriety, most (all?) of the children were killed in the fire or crushed to death beneath the Army’s 70-ton tank.  Some may have been shot by snipers.  Anyway, there wasn’t a lot of evidence after the fact.

Still, none of this answers Austin’s question.  I’ll pose a question which is easy to answer definitively: Would a drone strike on Rev. Koresh been legal?  Two questions, really – Would the drone strike have been ethical?  The answer to both questions is a certain “NO!” 

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear – “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  (Emphasis added).  The Fourteenth Amendment backs up the Fifth’s Due Process provision.  These concepts date back the Magna Carta in 1215.  The truth is eternal, it remains the same in 1215, 1791, 1993, or 2013.  The theory is that if the government wants to kill someone, they must adhere to a certain process.  We generally refer to the key part of the process as a trial (Jury, evidence, and stuff).  The theory jives with what that crazy carpenter, Jesus Christ, talked about twelve centuries before King John admitted his authority was not arbitrary.

For those of you who might have heard Austin and taken his question as a simple endorsement by mistake, how about this: Would Sheriff Whittle’s use of a drone against Scott Dean saved us the trouble and expense of a trial?  He was convicted, after all, by twelve wise citizens.  The fact of his innocence and his accuser’s later recantation are irrelevant for this discussion.  For those of you fortunate enough not to live in Cornfield County, Scott Dean was a County Commissioner.  He adopted some girls.  One of the girls, a teenager with a history of lying in court, accused him of a heinous crime.  He denied any guilt but was convicted none the less.  He went to prison.  Then, his lying adopted daughter, safely out of the country, admitted she made the story up and Dean was in fact innocent.

Since the recent revelation of Dean’s innocence I’m sure the twelve men and women who sent him to prison have the utmost difficulty sleeping at night.  Can you imagine the Sheriff’s guilt and shame had he used a drone instead of the law?  Natural Law and its proper extensions in the corporeal world are important.  “I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”  Saint Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons, 1966.

Due Process of law is a Natural Right to which every person is entitled when human laws exist.  This was obvious to earlier generations of Americans.

Too Big…

In my recent second installment of Slavery In America, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/slavery-in-america-part-ii-of-iii/, I mentioned the Big Club members who are invested in our modern plantation.  The giant banks are charter members of the club.  I mentioned their immunity from criminal prosecution last night.  It seems they are too big to fail, too big to jail, and they are rapidly sucking up all the wealth in this country.  See this story: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/corporatism-a-system-of-control-designed-by-the-monopoly-men-of-the-global-elite.  It’s about “corporatism,” the fascists’ bastardization of capitalism.  It’s an excellent article from an eye-opening site.

It Could Be Worse…

We could all be stuck in a cage and abandoned at the car wash…

0307131156a

(This poor guy was!  He was happily adopted though!)

Yeah, ramblin more than normal… 🙂

The Decline and Fall of Something…

28 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, America, Amerika, Augustus Caesar, Brutus, Caesar, Casca, Cassius, Cato, Cicero, Cincinnatus, civil liberties, Congress, Constitution, Consul, debt, decline, dictator, drones, due process, economics, emergency, Emperor, Federal Reserve, government, history, humility, lawlessness, Marius, Mark Anthony, murder, National Guard, Plutarch, politics, Posse Comitatus, President, republics, Roman Empire, Roman Republic, Ron Paul, Senate, serfdom, slavery, States, Sulla, Tacitus, Triumvirates, War, Washington

In my popular Posse Comitatus column, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, I made a possibly confusing and unfair allusion to Caesar bringing about the demise of the Roman Republic and ushering in the Empire.  It seems that “crossing the Rubicon” is too simply of an explanation for what really happened.  The actual process from republic to empire lasted for decades and involved many actors in addition to Caesar.

The Roman Republic existed from roughly 500 B.C. until 27 B.C.  Most republics do not make it that long.  Ours, if it can still be credibly called a republic, is coming apart at the seams after only 237 years.  The Roman Republic replaced the line of monarchs who had ruled Rome for over two and a half centuries.  It was succeeded by the Empire, which lasted from 27 B.C. until the German Odoacer set himself up as the first King of Italy in 476 A.D. 

During the Republic the government was operated by a Senate (congress) and one or two Consuls (presidents).  Most public officials were limited to one-year terms.  Many of these public offices, including the Consuls, survived into the Empire, though with greatly reduced authority.  There had been a tremendous amount of political strife for over 100 years before Augustus Caesar (Caesar Divi F. Augustus) became the First Emperor.

Caesar (Julius Caesar of the first Triumvirate) returned from war and was expected or feared to take dictatorial control of the Republic.  He became a dictator of sorts, but he never got the chance to fully dominate the Senate, being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C.  His murder at the hands of Casca, Brutus, and Cassius is one of the better known events of ancient history.  However, the conspiracy included dozens of Senators.  Allegedly (according to Tacitus?), once Caesar was killed, the chief leaders of the conspiracy called out repeatedly to Cicero by name, as if to showcase their good works.  It is also alleged Cicero waved off the acts and attention in disgust.

cicero

(Cicero, champion of Constitutional republicanism.  Google Images).

Many have theorized Cicero was a co-conspirator.  I don’t think so.  Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, statesman, Senator, and former Consul (63 B.C.) and is widely considered one of antiquities foremost figures.  His influence on Latin language is still felt with prominence today.  I quote he frequently as he was one of the most critical opponents of the Constitutional demise and all dictatorial actions.  He would be one of my two picks as the Ron Paul of his day, the other being the black-robed Cato.  Despite his constant opposition to totalitarianism, I do not think he would have sanctioned murder as a means to eliminate the practice.  I think his morals, nobility, and steadfast dedication to the law would have prevented his involvement.

Heedless of his own peril Cicero kept up his criticism of Mark Anthony and Company (the Second Triumvirate) and was, in 43 B.C., labeled an enemy of the state and hunted down mercilessly.  He was captured on December 7, 43 B.C. and immediately murdered by Anthony’s troops.  His last words (according to Plutarch?) were allegedly: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.”  He was decapitated and his head and hands displayed publicly in Rome.

This brutal display of lawlessness and savagery was formerly utilized by would-be or quasi dictators.  Gauis Marius and Lucius Sulla had used similar tactics against their enemies.  Such horrific treatment was the most high-tech form of intimidation at the time, drones were still more than 2000 years away.

Marius served seven terms (at intervals from 107 – 86 B.C.) as Consul despite laws enacting terms limits.  His power was derived from constant warfare and the need for “emergency” powers from the Senate.  War and “emergency” powers go hand in hand with dictatorship.  If you haven’t watched the news in the past 12 years, perhaps you did, at least, see the three Star Wars prequel movies. 

Sulla served two terms as Consul (82 – 81 B.C.) and, like Marius, gained much power as a petty dictator through war powers.  Sulla’s wars were not confined to foreign enemies, marching on Rome itself in 82 B.C.  The Senate foolishly conferred upon him dictatorial powers for life.  These he immediately began to use, murdering 1,000s of enemies, with no semblance of Due Process.  Previously, the Republic had prided itself on justice and faithful execution of the laws, rather than of citizens and nobles.

So, you see, Caesar has a product of his times as much as a dictator.  His short reign came in the middle of a century marked by Constitutional decline.  Caesar is the best remembered name from the period though his actual power differed little from that of his predecessors and successors.  He could have done eternally great service to the Republic and perhaps changed centuries of history if he had followed in the footsteps of one of his ancient precursors. 

History also remembers Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, mostly out of awe for his humility in power.  Cincinnatus was Consul and was granted dictatorial powers during a time of war twice, in 458 B.C. and again in 439 B.C.  Unlike 99% of historical figures granted such rare authority, Cincinnatus immediately abandoned his high position once crises abated.  Perhaps Caesar had such intention but was not allowed time to exercise it.  Perhaps not.

I hope you have seen, within this column, parallels to modern America.  To me they seem both unmistakable and also unmistakably dire in their warnings to us.

We currently have a President who, unchallenged essentially, claims the right to murder American citizens without Due Process.  At the same time, we have a craven opposition party which, rather than impeach and remove the usurper, propose to give him Constitutional powers beyond his office.  All of this, consequently, stems from “emergencies” whether martial or economic.  This has become an established pattern since 2001 though it has roots much older.

This year we mark the 100th anniversary of some of the most destructive Acts in our history.  In 1913 the 16th and 17th Amendments killed the States’ fading power against the central government and the Federal Reserve began it’s mission to enslave the nation (publicly and privately) in debt while enabling Washington to potentially spend without limit.  Around the same time the National Guard was formalized and strengthened, giving Washington military control over the entire nation. 

The ensuing 100 years saw an exponential growth in government, the decline of civil liberties, constant foolish wars, and the nationalization of serfdom.

Having recently lost our Cicero and Cato figures to retirement, we can only pray for a latter-day Cincinnatus.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Perrin Lovett

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

From Green Altar Books, an imprint of Shotwell Publishing

Perrin Lovett at:

Perrin on Geopolitical Affairs:

Archives

  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

Prepper Post News Podcast by Freedom Prepper (sadly concluded, but still archived!)

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Join 42 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • PERRIN LOVETT
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.